IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


V 


^ 


^ 


^d? 


{•/ 


.% 


y. 


1.0    ^«*s  I 


1.1 


2.5 


1^1 


2.2 


1^    U& 


2.0 


1.8 


1.25   III  1.4      1.6 

^ ■ 

6"     

► 

Hiotograpliic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


;3  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  M580 

(716)872-4503 


\ 


^^ 


^\ 


v^^ 


\ 


^ 


r^ 


i\'^^ 
^  ^ 


C> 


CmM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /Institut  Canadian  de  micron iproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibiiographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifiei 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


D 


D 


n 


n 


n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      j    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommag^e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur^e  et/ou  pellicul6e 


r~~|    Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


□    Coloured  maps/ 
Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 


D 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relid  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

Lareliure  serr6e  peut  causer  de  Tombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int^rieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  re&tauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6td  film^es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppldmentaires; 


□   Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

□    Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 

I — I    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 


^/ 


U 


Pages  restauries  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  ddcolories,  tachetdes  ou  piqudes 


□    Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachtos 


Showthrough/ 
Transparence 


I      I    Quality  of  print  varies/ 


Quality  in^gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^maniraire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc..  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalament  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6td  fiim^es  d  nouveau  de  faqon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  \\\mh  au  taux  de  r6duction  indiqui  ci-dessous. 

IPX  14X 18X 22X 

I   I   I   I  '   I   I   I  I   I  I   ■   u 


26X 


30X 


12X 


16X 


20/ 


24X 


28X 


32X 


:ail8 

du 

}difiei 

une 

nage 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Library  of  the  Public 
Archives  of  Canada 

The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  Iteeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  -— ^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED ").  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


L'exemplaire  filmA  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
g^nirusiti  de: 

La  bibliothdque  des  Archives 
publiques  du  Canada 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compts  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
fiimage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimie  sont  filmds  en  commen^ant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'improssion  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commen9ant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaftra  sur  la 
derniire  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbols  — '^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN  ". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  ieft  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
fflmis  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffirents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clich6.  ii  est  filmi  A  partir 
de  I'angle  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droits, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  c^agrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mithode. 


rrata 
to 


pelure, 
nd 


□ 

32X 


t 

f   ■;  ,    ■             -      ! 
f 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

V 


to 


^' 


I 


i 


HI 


I 


VIEWS 


ON  TlIC 


>^        '.. 


r-^^jis*^. 


.'uf 


* 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  TilE   ST.  LAWRENCE, 


'■'«  :.  KCPORrEff 


\iY   MR.   BUKL, 


To    acgoj^Pany  joiN*r  rijsolutiox  ox  the  same  sub^kct  puo:m  the 

COMMCtTKIi    ox    FOREIGN    AFFAIRS. 


jtiVi 


*» 


In  the  house  of  representatives,  may  Q.  i;39 


WASmXGTON":  - 
IfUtXTED    AT   UMON   OFFICK. 

1850. 


tV 


•:^  i;  '■''  J.  7 


3 


U  i 


^ 


/ 


Si  St  CoNoiiRsa, 
\8t  Sossioiir. 


Rep.  No.  295, 


Ho.  OP  Rrps. 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OP  l^HE  ST.  LAWRENCE. 

[To  accompany  Joint  Resolution  No.  19.] 


,....;        .J.  . 

I, 


/ 


May  2,  1850. 


Mr.  BuEi.j  from  tho  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  made  the  following 

REPORTj 

The  Commillet  on  r\)r(;is!-n  AJftrim,  to  tohom  were  referred  sundry  peti- 
tions of  citizens  of  tfw  United  States  residing  in  States  adjacent  to  the 
tmrthcrn  chain  of  lakes,  ond  thr  memorvd  of  the  legislature  of  the  Stale 
of  Wi^cnnsin^  praying  Congress  to  adopt  measures  for  securing  to 
Amaican  commerce  the  right  of  fn^ty  navigating  the  St.  Lawrence, 
and  alsff  jxtint  rvsvluiinns  of  the  hj^islaiure  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
relative  fo  (he  sarrfC  subject^  report  : 

Thai  they  have  had  the  subject  under  consideration^  and  they  recom- 
mend the  adoption  of  the  foilowiiij?  resolution: 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  Hoiise  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
^ates  (f  America  in  Congress  assembled-,  That  the  free  navigation  of 
Ihe  St.  Lavvreuce  river,  for  commercial  purposes,  demands  the  earnest  at- 
lentiort  of  the  Anjerican  government;  and  that  it  is  highly  desirable  that  it 
fee  8ec«r<;d  io  An>ericaj<  ooiumefce  at  an  early  day. 


!\ 


,/i 


h 


/ 


as 


T 


<  r 


i 


!%? 


t 


31  «t  CoVC.RKfig, 

1st  Session. 


Rep.  No.  295. 


Ho.  OF  Reihi. 


FREK  NAVIGATION  OF  THE  ST.  LAV'RENC^K. 


May  2,  1850. 


Mr.  UuEL,  from  the  (Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  prosentod  the  foUowinp^ 
views  of  a  portion  of  tiie  comnaittee;  which  were  ordered  to  be  printed: 

[TO  ACCOMPANY  REPORT  295.] 

The  mukrsifrnvd.,  members  of  the  Committee  on  Forcifrn  Afnirs,  to  whom 
were  referred  sunilrij  petitions  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  re.sidins' 
in  Stales  adjacent  to  the  northern  chain  of  lakes,  and  the  mcnt'-ia!  nf 
the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  praying  Congress  to  adopt 
measures  for  securing  to  American  commerce  the  right  of  freely  navi' 
gating  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  niso  Joint  resolutions  of  the  legislature  of 
the  State  of  Michigan  relative  to  the  same  subject,  asskxtixo  to  the 
resolution  reported  by  the  committee,  also  report  their  reasons: 

The  free  navigation  of  the  St.  liawrence,  from  its  connexion  with  the 
chain  of  lalies  to  tlie  ocean,  presenis  n  question  somewhat  new  in  the 
history  of  the  government.  In  its  early  agitation,  its  importance  was 
more  prospective  than  present;  and  hence,  after  various  unsuccessful  at- 
tempts to  settle  it  by  negotiation  with  Great  Britain,  it  was  allowed  to 
slumber  until  a  more  urgent  occasion  should  call  for  its  decision. 

The  future,  which  then  seemed  distant,  has  suddenly  become  a  pres- 
ent reality,  and  the  wonderful  growth  of  our  inland  commerce  of  the 
lakes  has  revived  the  question  and  given  to  it  fresh  interest.  The  gov- 
ernment is  now  called  upon  to  adopt  measures  for  securing  a  commercial 
privilege  of  great  local  and  national  importance.  Final  action  upon  the 
subject  will  determine  whether  the  export  productions  of  the  Northwest 
and  the  States  adjacent  to  the  lakes  may,  in  part,  find  their  way  to  the 
markets  of  the  world  through  the  ocean-outlet  of  nature,  or  be  disadva/i- 
tageonsly  forced  through  the  interrupted,  contracted,  and  circuitous  chan- 
nels of  art.  It  will  in  fact  determine  whether  the  millions  who  dwell  and 
are  to  dwell  in  the  valley  of  the  lakes  shall  be  permitted  to  seek  inter- 
course with  remote  countries  by  a  gentle  and  easy  descent  to  the  ocean, 
thus  appropriating  the  St.  Lawrence  as  a  natural  highway  to  the  pur- 
poses for  which  it  was  designed  by  Providence,  or  whether  they  must  di- 
vert streams  from  their  native  beds,  fell  forests,  fill  up  valleys,  bridge 
chasms,  and  even  climb  or  penetrate  mountains,  in  order  to  maintain 
such  intercourse. 

Whoever  will  look  at  this  question  in  its  length  and  breadth  will  not 
wonder  that  it  now  presses  itself  upon  the  attention  of  the  country  as  a 
great  practical  question.  The  laws  of  nature,  the  wants  of  the  people, 
the  conmiercd  interests  of  the  country,  and  even  the  necessities  of  the 


/ 


,^  »»•».  •-•.•♦ , 


—>'«    H  ^uw-A-  .A*>  r*'*^^ -^k-^w  ^~.  ■■» 


—  "*■  '**•■**,,  P~  ^ -.->-.•.  *.**»,  ^.  *   %,  .^-a  •*.  ♦#^,, 


nI    '. 


Rep.  No.  295. 


case,  ronspiro  to  prosont  tho  question  as  ono  wliifli  tnust  oro  lone,'  bo  ih'A'i- 
(led,  cither  by  Icfiislntioii  or  nci^'otiiUion,  or  by  Ibat  urcat  (•urrt'utof  events 
wbieli  overrides  biiiuaii  ellbrt,  and  aeponipbs.lies  <;ii(l.s  in  spite  of  all  re- 
sistance. 

Nor  is  tfte  (luestion  one  of  mere  lord  iiii])i>rt?wii-e.  ""riie  St.  Ijawront^e 
f()riiis  part  oC  tli(!  loiiy  flitiin  of  waters  \\\\W\\  lies  upon  our  nortln'in 
boundary,  as  did  onee  tho  Mississippi  upon  oin'  western;  and  tlie  ques- 
tion of  Iret  ly  naviijfatinj^  the  latter  was  not  mneb  loss  national  m  lis  na- 
ture llian  is  that  of  freely  navi^'ating  ibe   former. 

A  full  exundnation  of  the  subjeet  requin>s  some  netiee  of  the  faet  tlial 
our  government  bus  bitluMlo  <'laimed  tin;  riglit  (d' freoly  nuviL![nting  the 
St.  liUwrenee  as  a  iiolunil  right.  It  was  upon  this  Iwsis  i!.',at  the  elaim 
was  urged  and  supported  widi  ;,reat  power  and  ability.  It  was  resistiij 
by  (jireat  l>ritain,  and  the  discussion  ternnnatfid  widiout  ils  .setlleiiient. 
The  elaim  of  riglit  is  believed  to  slund  now  as  it  did  iIi'mi,  .'-a/o  that  new 
events  have  given  it  new  strength.  The  subject,  therefore,  presents  itself 
in  a  twftfold  aspect — 

1,  As  aright,  to  he  claimed  by  the  government. 

2.  As  a  privilege,  to  be  securnl  by  treaty,  or  some  recipmral  legislation. 
We  do  not  propose  to  discuss  at  great  length  the  natural  right  of  the 

United  States  to  a  free  passage  to  the  ocean  through  the  waters  of  the  St. 
Lawrence.  Whilst  but  i'ew  arguments  can  be  added  to  thoie  which  were 
urged  nearly  a  generation  since  in  its  support,  it  is  yet  woithy  of  notiin* 
that  th(!  experience  of  the  ])resent  day  has  so  clearly  proved  ttujir  justice 
and  validity.  The  wants  and  necessities  of  the  extensive  region  of  tho 
lakes,  which  were  then  so  ])lainly  shadowed  forth  in  the  future,  have 
now  come  to  exist,  and  contnin  the  justice  of  our  claim.  If  is  therel'ore 
deemed  well  to  revive,  if  not  to  ])ress,  this  view  of  the  subject,  so  that,  il 
the  government  shall  at  last  co'^ceive  itself  conyjielled  to  purchase  as  a 
privilege  that  which  jnstly  belonged  to  it  as  a  right,  its  action  may  ap- 
pear, what  it  really  will  be,  a  measure  of  necessity,  resulting  iVom  the 
iniwillingness  of  England  to  acknowledge  the  justice  of  onr  <'laim.  In 
such  an  event,  it  will  be  hut  just  that  the  transaction  shordd  stand  forth 
in  its  true  character  in  the  history  of  her  intercourse  with  us;  whilst, 
however,  the  unconditional  acknowledgment  of  our  right  by  Great  Britain 
would  be  received  by  the  people  of  this  country  with  t!ie  liveliest  satis- 
fection,  and  could  not  fail  to  have  a  ])owerful  inlhience  in  convincing 
them  of  her  dis])osition  to  treat  lis  with  justice  and  libernlity,  and  in  con- 
firming the  good  understanding  which  now  happily  prevails  Ixjtween  tho 
two  countries. 

Although  the  right  of  the  United  States  freely  to  navigate  the  St.  Law- 
rence to  the  ocean  may  have  existed  from  (he  definitive  acknowledgment 
of  our  independence  by  Great  Britain  in  lTS:j,  and  even  from  the  treaty  of 
Paris  in  17G3,  ■which  secured  to  her  the  Canadas,  and  of  course  to  her,  i'l 
oommon  with  her  adjacent  colonies,  the  use  and  control  of  that  river 
throughout  its  whole  extent,  yet,  as  a  f/iwstwn,  it  is  n;odern  in  its  origin. 
So  long  as  there  was  no  occasion  for  exercising  the  right,  there  was  none 
for  asserting  or  disputing  it.  It  is  true,  under  the  supposition  that  the 
sources  of  the  Mississippi  were  within  the  British  boundaries  as  estali- 
lished  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  that  instrument  contained  a  stipulation 
that  "the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,/;/;///  Us  source  to  tJw  ocmn, 
shall  fore^-er  remaiii  free  and  open  to  the  subjects  of  Groat  Britain  and 


I 


""♦•.♦,^^. !*■,»«■  »-♦»,.♦. 


,».  *   -*-   «^<r    ,-«— 


niif  1)0  (Joci- 

Itt  i)f  I'VOIltS 

ill!  ol"  ull  le- 
in   noitlK'i'ii 

(I    fllO  (|!1(!S- 

al  111  ii.s  iia- 

10  fart  (liat 

ii^atiiig  ihet 

at  tlnj  claim 

was  n'sist(!il 

>t'tlI(MII(!llt. 

0  that  now 
osciits  itself 


I  IcgJstlitirn. 

iii,'lit  of  tlie 
rs  of  the  8t. 
wliicli  wvui 
ly  of  notii'L* 
liffir  jusiico 
i;inii  of  tho 
ntiire,  liavc; 
is  tlKrefoio 
■,  so  that,  il 
!  re  ha  so  as  a 
ion  may  ap- 
ig  from  tho 
<*hiim.     In 
stand  lortli 
tis;  whilst, 
iroat  Britain 
•oliost  satis- 
convincing 
and  in  i;on- 
)(;lU'eei!  tlio 

le  tSt.  I,;n\'- 
wlodyniont 
ho  troaty  of 

0  to  hor,  i*i 
that  river 

1  its  origin, 
t  Avas  none 
m  that  tho 
5  as  I'stal)- 
stipuialioii 
tJic  ocean, 

{ritaiu  and 


I 


Rep.  No.  2f^5.  t 

the  citizens  of  tho  United  States,"  whilst  it  was  silent  npon  th«  subject 
of  navigating  the  St.  Lawronoc.  The  eases  were  nndonhtedly  analogous 
as  regards  tin;  mititinl  riijht  of  navigating  similar  outlets  to  the  oeean,  but 
in  some  respects  they  were  widely  difFcrent.  We  cannot  fail  to  perceive 
that,  by  this  stipulation,  the  two'colmtri(^s  claimed  the  free  navigation  of 
tho  Mississippi  froiri  its  source  to  tho  ocean  on  tho  nntnrnl  riglit  alono,/or 
t/ial  rJnim  irns  thus  put  fnrtli  in  the  trvnty,  vnt/inuf  nni/  nrmn'^pmi'.ut  with 
Spniv,  hy  whom  the  innuth  of  that  river  was  then  hflil.  Hnt^this  featiirc! 
in  th(!  case  deserves  more  particular  notice  in  another  connexion. 

It  nuist  also  be  observed  that  thi;  cases  were  widely  dilftirent  in  re- 
spect to  the  sup]v)sed  relafiv(^  irnporlanre  of  tlie  two  rivers.  The  situ- 
ation of  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  in  reference  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
and  tho  West  Indies,  the  continuance  of  navigation  flir  mon;  than  a  thou- 
sand miles  above  its  mouth  at  all  seasons  of  the  year,  and  its  character  as 
an  extensive  national  boundary,  well  indicated  tho  future  importance  of 
the  river,  and  tho  wisdom  of  s(>ruring,  if  possible,  the  right  of  fn>ely  navi- 
gating its  waters.  But  the  future  value  of  the  St.  liawrence  was  t!ien 
estimated  by  ditlerent  circumstances.  It  was  icebound  hx  one-half  of 
the  year.  It  was  contiguous  to  but  one  of  the  States,  (New  Yor!:,)  and 
l(ir  but  a  small  part  of  its  northern  boundary;  and  even  here  tho  habita- 
tion of  the  white  man  was  seldom,  if  ever,  to  bo  fiund.  We  had  no  ' 
conjmerce,  no  property,  afloat  U|)im  this  river,  uidess  in  the  bark  canoe;  and 
emanating  from  the  small  trading  posts  among  tho  Indians  upon  the 
upper  laK'cs.  l-'ivon  this  trade  was  carried  on  with  Montreal,  and  was  es- 
sentially ('anadian  in  its  character.  The  geography  of  all  this  region 
was  but  little  uiulerstood  in  our  own  country,  mUch  less  in  Europe;  and 
some  of  its  natural  curiositi(;s  were  there  known  very  nuich  as  won(iorfu! 
traditions  or  fables.  Detroit  existed  only  as  a  trading  post;  whilst  Buf- 
falo, (which  now  rivals  even  the  ancient  capital  of  New  York,)  Cleveland, 
Chicago,  and  Milwaukie,  were  tlien  unknown.  Tlio  great  valley  of  the 
lakes  was  without  people,  without  connnerco.  Whilst  they  were  viewed 
as  a  Avaste  of  waters,  their  sh(^rcs  were  skirted  for  thousands  of  miles  by 
one  continuous  wilderness. 

Besides,  canals  were  at  this  time  unknown  in  our  country.  It  was 
gravely  published  in  London,  about  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  in  an 
extensive  geographical  and  historical  work,  that  the  Falls  of  Niagara  are 
six  hundred  feet  in  height,  and,  at  tho  period  of  tho  acknowledgment  of 
our  independence  by  (ireat  Britain,  they  were  doubtless  regarded  as  an 
insurmountable  barrier  against  all  connexion  by  navigation  of  the  upper 
lakes  with  the  waters  of  the  St.  Lawrence.  In  fact,  no  human  wiodom 
could  foresee  that  what  then  seemed  to  be  the  work  of  centuries  was 
destined  to  be  aceomplished  in  one  or  two  generations.  Still  less  could 
human  wisdom  foresee  that  these  lakes  would  so  soon  teem  with  a  com- 
merce that  should  demand  tin;  use  of  that  highway  to  tho  ocean  which 
was  provided  for  it  by  nature.  Had  the  wonderful  realities  of  the  present 
been  thought  or  dreamed  of,  and  our  natural  right  under  such  circum- 
stances (juestioned,  at  tlu^  period  of  tho  treaty  of  '83,  can  any  one  doubt 
that  we  shotiid  have  demanded  a  stipulation  for  the  free  navigation  of  the 
St.  Lawrence,  and  that  such  stipulation  would  have  been  as  readily  at- 
Tanged  as  that  for  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi? 

VVo  have  submitted  the  preceding  observation?  for  tlie  purpose  of  show- 
ing that  the  queytion  of  our  right  to  the  uavijjation  of  tho  St,  Lawrence 


/= 


6 


Rep.  No.  295. 


/I 


cdul'l  not  havi!  existed  as  a  priuuicnl  (|«c«tioii  nt  tlie  jir'iiodof  ilio  twdly  of 
'H3,  but  JK  ono  of  Kults(HHJi)iil  and  itiodcni  origin.  Wc  have  desired  to 
hUo\V  that  it  could  not  exi.st  as  a  pra''ti<!al  (piestion  luitil  th(!  country  of 
tlM!  lakes  c.iiine  to  b(!  iidial)it(!(l  and  civilized,  and  to  teeui  witii  a  coiunu'rct} 
«e«king  its  natural  channel  in  this  oc(;an-outlet.  That  period  has  now 
conic,  and  with  a  rapidity  far  In^yond  tlu!  conceptions  o(  our  ancestors. 
The  spirit  of  ent<^rprise  and  adventure,  which  at  an  early  day  in  our  his- 
tory sent  the  Anu^rican  pioneer  to  the  loot  of  the  All(!ghanies,  has  carried 
Ids  d  'sceudunts  far  over  and  beyond  this  barrier,  and  planted  their  habi- 
tations on  the  shores  of  those  f,Mt;al  lakes  upon  v/hose  waters  they  now 
ask  to  1)0  l)orne  in  their  downward  passa^'O  to  the  ocean. 

Having  thus  brielly  noticed  the  origin  and  history  of  our  claim,  wo 
come  next  to  a  consideration  of  llie  arguments  u|H)n  which  it  rests. 

Nature  plaiidy  points  to  the  ocean  as  a  field  of  cuter|)rise  lor  the  whole 
world,  and  iiUernational  law  rei^ognises  it  as  projierty  to  be  enjoyed  in 
comniou  by  all  nations.  While  nature  has  tluis  provided  the  worlil  with 
a  common  highway,  she  lias  been  lavish  in  also  providing  for  inlaud  na- 
tions lesser  highways  or  means  of  access  to  it,  such  as  iidtits  and  rivers. 
The  right  of  all  nations  jointly  to  navigate  the  ocean  may  well  be  deduced 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  common  reservoir  formed  by  a  r.nion  of  the 
lesser  highways  or  rivers,  which,  to  a  certain  degree,  are  recognised  as 
the  property  of  the  contiguous  nations  through  whose  territories  they 
])ass,  to  the  extent  of  their  contiguity.  This  properly  is  justly  (jualilied 
by  the  claim  of  up|X!r  and  inland  nations  to  tlie  right  of  passage  to  and 
from  the  ocean;  and  this  right  of  ingress  and  egress  asserts  but  little  more 
than  the  national  right  of  using  and  following  a  national  (pialified  prop- 
erty until  it  reaches  the  ocean  or  counnon  reservoir,  where  all  stand  upon 
equ.d  footing. 

A  nation  may  well  assort  control  over  a  river  flowing  in  its  whole 
length  through  its  own  territories.  So,  too,  by  analogy,  uiay  a  nation 
assert  control  over  the  sources  or  upper  parts  of  a  river,  so  far  as  they 
lie  within  its  boundaries.  Such  right  interferes  with  the  interestd  of 
no  nation  below  in  seeking  passage  to  and  from  its  mouth,  and  prose- 
cuting its  trade  and  commerce  upon  the  ocean.  But  is  it  not  a 
very  dilferent  case,  when  a  nation,  by  discovery,  settlement,  or  con- 
(piest,  takes  possession  of  the  mouth  jf  a  great  ocean-outlet,  which, 
it  may  be,  extends  inland  for  thousands  of  miles,  washes  and  fer- 
tilizes the  soil  of  various  climates  and  countries,  and  is  the  only  nat- 
ural highway  of  many  nations  equally  sovereign  with  that  which  may 
chance  to  own  the  soil  contiguous  to  its  mouth  ?  What  process  of  reason- 
ing, or  what  plea  of  convenience  or  necessity,  in  such  case,  can  concen- 
trate in  the  lower  nation  a  sovereignty  which  overrides  and  absorbs  all 
sovereignties  above,  or  give  to  the  lower  sovereignty  a  greater  right  of  navi- 
gation than  that  which  belongs  to  the  upper?  The  language  of  the  pro- 
tocol referred  to  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Rush,  when  minister  to  England,  to 
Mr.  Adams,  the  American  Secretary  of  State,  dated  August  12,  1823,  well 
confirms  the  preceding  view: 

<<  It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  the  possession  by  one  nation  of  both 
the  shores  of  a  river  at  its  mouth  gives  tlie  right  of  obstructing  the  navi- 
gation of  it  to  the  people  of  other  nations  living  on  the  banks  above;  but  it 
remains  to  be  shown  upon  what  satisfactory  grounds  the  assumption  by 
tlie  nation  below  of  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  a  river  dms  situated  can  be 
placed.    The  common  right  to  navigate  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  right 


1 


,^.^^#/^'¥**r>—*^»**»»-»  •Y^' 


Rop.  No.  20^ 


0  0 


oftlKj  treaty  of 
;jv(!  (it!.sirc(l  to 
IIk!  country  of 
ill  <i  coiiinn'rcti 
criod  has  now 
our  nncj'storx. 
liiy  ill  our  liis- 
i.'K,  lias  carried 
tod  tlidr  hubi- 
Uns  they  now 

our  <laiin,  we 

it  rests. 

ft»r  tiie  whole 

Ih!  enj(>vod  iu 
ho  worlii  with 

li)r  inluud  nu- 
I'ts  iind  rivors. 

;11  hodoJiicod 
union  of  the 

rocognised  as 
L'rriiorios  they 
Lstly  qnahfied 
KLssiige  to  and 
but  little  more 
liiulified  prop- 
ill  stand  upon 

in  its  whole 

may  a  nation 

io  fur  as  they 

le  interestd  of 

h,  and  prose- 

is  it  not  a 
lent,  or  con- 
utlet,  which, 
shes  and  fer- 
Lhe  only  nat- 
t  which  may 
:ess  of  reason- 
,  can  concen- 
1  absorbs  all 
right  of  navi- 
,'e  of  the  pro- 
)  England,  to 
2,  1823,  well 

ation  of  both 
ng  the  navi- 
above;  but  it 
ssumption  by 
liiated  can  be 
hand,  a  righl 


I 


i 


I 


of  nature.  This  is  n  princi|)le  which,  it  i^  couficivod,  will  be  found  to 
have  the  sanction  of  the  most  revcrsd  anthorilies  of  ancient  and  modern 
tiuuis;  tiiid  if  tht'ro  have  Ix'en  leni[M)rary  occasions  when  it  has  been  (|nf's- 
tioned,  it  is  not  known  that  the  reasoiiH  U|)on  which  it  rests,  as  devoldjM'd 
in  the  must  appnwed  works  upon  public,  law,  have  ever  been  impugned. 

*'  There  is  no  sentiment  more  (le<!ply  and  universally  felt  than  that  the 
ocean  is  free  to  all  men,  and  the  waters  that  llow  into  il  to  those  who<o 
home  is  u|m)ii  their  shores.  In  nearly  every  part  of  the  world  we  find  this 
natural  right  ackiuiwhidged,  by  laying  ii.avigable  rivers  opvMi  to  all  the  in- 
habitants of  their  baidts;  and  wluiiever  the  stream,  entering  the  limits  of 
another  society  or  nation,  has  b(!en  interdicted  to  the  U[)per  inhabitant;*,  it 
has  b(^eu  an  act  of  /hire  by  a  stronger  against  a  weaker  parly,  and  con- 
demned by  the  judgment  of  mankind.  The  right  of  the  up|)er  inhabit- 
anls  to  the  full  use  of  the  stream  rests  "pon  the  same  imperious  want  as 
that  of  the  lower— upon  the  same  intrinsic  neceasity  of  participating  in 
the  benefits  of  this  lli  wing  eleuieiit." 

liCt  us  now  iiKpiire  into  tin;  naiuro  of  this  right  of  sovereignly  over 
navigal)l(!  rivers  passing  through  dilf(jrcnt  countries.  The  luitnnil  law 
clearly  points  to  them  as  highways  common  to  the  iiadoiis  which  dwell 
upon  tlieir  banks.  'IMie  law  of  nations  likiins  them  to  highways,  and 
such,  it  is  believed,  they  are  defined  to  be  by  tiie  statute  law  of  nearly  all 
civilized  countries.  liut  the  control  of  ordiui'.iy  highways  is  by  no  means 
absolute  in  the  ruling  sovereignly.  'I'hey  are  a|)propriat(!d  by  human  as 
well  as  natural  laws  to  certain  specific  purposes,  which  are  iuconsisient 
with  the  uiu[ualifu;d  right  of  any  power  to  dispose  of  them  at  will.  Tko 
individual,  subject,  orciiizeu,  \.\w  lutturut  man,  possesses  riylits  here  which 
ev(!ii  the  sovereignty  cannot  justly  annul  or  take  from  him  without  ren- 
dering comjKiusatiou.  'JMie  instructions  of  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Rush  in 
i8"^3  upon  this  sul)ject  are  so  pertinent  to  this  view,  that  they  deserve 
to  be  ([uoted:  "  The  right  of  navigating  the  river  is  a  right  of  nature, 
preceding  it  in  point  of  tifuc,  and  waich  the  sovereign  right  of  one  nation 
cannot  diinihilate,  as  belonging  to  the  jieople  of  another."  U|Kin  this 
point,  Mr.  Rtish  pressed  our  claim  on  the  IJritish  government  in  the  very 
terms  of  his  instructions. 

The  principle  relied  on  points  to,  and  springs  from,  the  natural  right  of 
every  human  creature  to  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  and  happiness,  and 
to  the  use  of  all  those  just  means  which  are  necessary  to  give  ed'ect  to 
that  right.  The  existing  sovereignty  may  regulate  die  use  of  a  highway, 
but  it  has  no  right,  in  ordinary  cases,  to  close  or  destroy  it,  without  com- 
pensating individual  losses.  Such  avenues  are  for  the  use  of  the  public — 
of  the  individuals  composing  the  luling  state.  The  right  to  a  highway  is 
die  right  to  use  it,  to  travel  in  it,  to  pass  and  repass.  It  is  created, 
whether  artificial  or  natural,  not  so  much  for  the  accommodation  of  nations 
in  their  sovereign  capacity,  as  of  the  individuals  who  dwell  near  them, 
and  who,  without  them,  could  not  prosecute  the  ordinary  pursuits  and  oc- 
cupations of  civilized  lil'e.  Is  it  not  evident,  then,  that  the  sovereignty 
which  a  nation  is  said  to  possess  over  its  highways  is,  substantially  and 
for  praciicdl  purposes,  the  right  of  the  indioidiuil  mun  to  use  Uiem  for 
those  objects  for  which  they  were  originally  designed  ? 

Let  us  now  apply  these  views  more  directly  to  the  case  of  navigable 
rivers.  They  are  held  to  be  highways  by  the  courts  of  England  and  of 
this  country,  and  the  right  of  using  them  is  likened  to  that  of  using  a 


^.,\.*.  .'\^  •  -  *<*-— -^"-.- 


i/ 


10 


Rep.  No.  295. 


highway.  The  Rnglish  and  American  law  treatises  and  decisions  are  full 
of  aiUhcrity  to  this  effect,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  cite  them.  It  is  worthy 
of  remark  that  Congress,  as  early  as  1780,  affirmed  tliis  view  in  respect  to 
the  navigable  waters  leading  into  the  Mississippi  and  St.  Lawrence.  'J'.his 
WPb  done  by  a  resolution  adopted  in  that  year;  and  the  same  view  was  af- 
terwards realllrmed  in  the  ordinance  of  17S7,  which,  in  the  very  language 
of  the  resolution  cited,  declares  the  said  waters  and  the  carrying  places  be- 
tween the  same  "  to  be  conmion  highways,  and  forever  free,  as  well  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  said  territory  as  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  those  of  any  other  States  that  may  be  admitted  into  the  confederacy, 
without  any  tax,  impost,  or  duty  therefor."  The  right  of  freely  naviga- 
ting the  Mississippi  to  its  mouth  had  already  beeji  asserted  by  the  United 
States,  and  the  resolution  cited  and  the  ordinance  of  1787  extended  that 
right  to  the  navigable  tributaries  of  both  rivers. 

How,  then,  stands  the  case  of  (he  St.  Lawrence?  It  is  a  large  navigable 
river,  emptying  directly  into  the  ocean.  For  several  hundred  miles  above 
its  n;outh,  it  is  substantially  a  great  ocean-inlet,  averaging  not  less  than 
thirty  miles  in  width.  Alji»ve,  the  American  sovereignty  rules  upon  one 
bank  and  the  English  upon  the  other;  whilst  below,  both  are  ruled  by 
the  latter.  It  is  a  national  highway;  and  the  right  to  navigate  it  is  the 
right  to  use  it,  to  apply  it  to  those  purposes  for  which  it  was  designed  by 
the  God  of  nature.  The  riglit  of  navigation  in  this  case,  as  in  that  of  a 
highway,  is  the  right  of  the  hiflivuhifil,  the  natural  mou;  and  the  ruling 
sovereignly  is  absolute  in  neither.  In  fact,  that  sovereignty  or  control 
which  a  nation  claims  for  itself  over  a  navigable  river  passing  within  its 
borders  is  subslantially  the  right  of  its  people — its  individual  citizens  or 
subjects — to  use  it  according  to  its  natural  design  cf  furnishing  them  with 
a  pathway  to  the  ocean,  and  enabling  them  to  hold  intercourse  with  the 
remote  noftions  of  the  globe.  How,  then,  can  those  who  dwell  upon  the 
upper  parts  of  a  navigable  stream  lose  the  right  of  freely  passing  on  it  to 
and  from  the  ocean  by  happemng  not  to  dwell  under  the  sovereignty  of 
that  peoyde  who  occupy  its  lower  banks?  How  can  it  be  shown  that  a 
mere  difference  of  local  position  can  thus  operate  to  diminish  or  eidarge  a 
natural  right  which  exists  and  belongs  to  man  independently  of  all  hu- 
man government? 

To  such  views  as  these  may  be  added  the  authority  of  Mr.  Clay,  who, 
when  he  was  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  instructions  of  June  19,  1 820,  to 
Mr.  Gallatin,  our  minister  at  London,  used  the  following  language:  "  It  is 
inconceivable  upon  what  just  grounds  a  nation  bt'lowcan  oppose  the  right 
of  that  above  to  pass  through  a  great  natural  highway  into  the  sea,  that  it 
may  trade  or  hold  intercourse  with  other  nations  by  their  consent.  From 
the  very  nature  of  such  a  river,  it  must,  in  respect  to  its  navigable  uses, 
be  considered  as  common  to  all  the  nations  who  inhabit  its  banks,  as  a 
free  gift  flowing  from  the  bounty  of  Heaven,  intended  for  all  whose  lots 
are  cast  u|xm  its  borders."  And  in  his  instructions  of  the  8th  of  August, 
in  the  same  year,  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  lie  says,  concerning  the  right  of  naviga- 
ting the  St.  Lawrence,  independently  of  Great  Britain:  "  Nor  can  the  Presi- 
dent consent  to  any  treaty  by  which  they  should  renounce  that  riglit,  ex- 
pressly or  by  implication." 

The  right  to  refiulate  the  use  o^."  highway — as  a  na^ngable  river — must 
not  be  confounded  with  an  absoUitt  sovereignty.  This  right  of  regula- 
tion must  necessarily  belong  to  Che  contiguous  uationsj  but  it  must  be 


i 


mnMH 


iiWllnii01»M 


w^.— •■»,,*.,» 


.\< 


Rep  No.  295. 


11 


isions  are  full 
It  is  worthy 
r  in  respert  U> 
vrenre.  This 
view  was  af- 
'ery  langunge 
ing  places  be- 
as  well  to  the 
JriitPfl  States 
fonfederacy, 


re* 


ly  riavi 


Ka- 


>y  the  United 
jxiended  that 

rge  navigable 
miles  above 
t)ot  less  than 
les  npon  one 
are  ruled  by 
igaie  it  is  the 
designed  by 
s  in  that  of  a 
nd  the  rnling 
ty  or  control 
ng  within  its 
d  citizens  or 
ig  them  with 
nrse  with  the 
I'ell  npon  (he 
ssing  on  it  to 
ovoreignfy  of 
shown  that  a 
I  or  enlarge  a 
tly  of  all  hu- 

.  Clay,  who, 
19,  182(3,  to 
uage:  "  It  is 
lose  the  right 
e  sea,  that  it 
sent.  From 
vigable  uses, 
i  banks,  as  a 
1  whose  lots 
1  of  August, 
It  of  naviga- 
an  the  I'resi- 
at  right,  ex- 

river — must 

t  of  reff-ida- 

it  must  be 


I 


i 


exercised  consistendy  Atith  the  prior  natural  right  of  navigation.  Laws 
and  government  should  extend  as  well  over  the  M'aters  as  the  banks  of  a 
river,  iuid  they  form  what  may  be  called  the  local  jurisdiction.  But  the 
prior  right  of  navigation  overrides  all  local  l;uv,  and  cannot  be  annulled, 
for  it  existed  before  and  cxiL^ts  indvpenildnlbj  of  all  law.  The  right  may 
be  regulated  under  law  by  considerations  of  justice  and  expediency,  but 
it  cannot  be  destroyed.  The  right  of  navigating  the  ocean  furnishes  an 
apt  illustration  of  the  distinction  thus  taken.  No  one  will  de..y  that  it 
is  a  natural  right,  and  exists  independently  of  law;  but  its  exercise 
brought  into  existence  new  circumstances  and  relations  between  nations, 
which  rendered  necessaiy  some  law  for  the  regulation  of  such  exercise. 
Here  we  see  the  origin  of  international  maritime  law,  which  asserts  juris- 
diction over  the  ocean,  furnishes  it  with  a  government,  and  ri'v;idcit,cs 
without  destroying  the  prior  right.  It  is  only  in  this  sense  that  a  nation 
can  be  said  to  have  sovereign  power  over  the  mouth  of  a  navigable 
river,  as  against  another  occupying  above.  This  same  distinction  was 
evident'y  taken  by  Mr.  Adams  in  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Rush,  bef)re 
referred  to,  and  in  the  following  terms:  "  The  exclusive  n'"//^  o/"/wnV 
diiiction  over  a  river  originates  in  the  social  compact,  and  is  a  right  of  sov- 
eignty.  The  rifrht  of  nnvi^'olwrr  the  river  is  a  right  of  nature,  preceding 
it  in  yxiint  of  time,  and  which  the  sovereign  right  of  one  nation  cannot 
aiuiiliilale,  as  belonging  to  the  people  of  another."  The  Congress  of 
Vienna,  in  181.5,  whilst  it  provided  ibr  the  free  navigation  of  many  ol  the 
rivers  of  Europe,  did  not  omit  also  to  ])rovide  that  "  the  rcgidations 
established  with  regard  to  the  police  of  this  navigation"  should  be  re- 
spected— thus  plainly  recognising  a  right  of  jurisdiction  as  distinct  from 
that  of  navigation. 

We  have  now  readied  that  point  in  the  argimient  upon  the  nature  of  na- 
tional sovereignty  over  navigable  rivers  emptying  into  the  ocean  where  we 
are  prepared  to  assert  it  is  seldom,  if  ever,  absolute  and  uiiqunlijied.  It  does 
not  exist  in  the  case  of  a  navigable  stream  situate  entirely  within  the  terri- 
tory of  a  single  nation ;  for  it  is  subject  to  the  prior  natmal  right  of  those  who 
have  planted  their  homes  upon  its  banks,  and  nuist  be  exercised  consis- 
tently with  that  right.  It  does  not  exist  in  the  case  of  a  nation  dwelling 
upon  any  part  above  its  mouth,  or,  it  may  be,  occupying  exclusively  its 
sources  ;  tor,  in  that  case,  such  nation,  exercising  its  absolute  sov- 
ereignty, cculd  divert  the  stream,  and  thus  flestroy  the  navigation  of 
nations  occupying  below.  Lastly,  it  does  not  exist  in  the  case  of  a  na- 
tion holding  the  mouth;  iox  if,  as  we  have  just  seen,  a  nation  occupying 
above  cannot  possess  it,  by  what  principle  of  justice  can  it  be  shoM  \\  that 
a  nation  occupying  below  can  possess  it,  thus  estalilishing,  in  respect  tc 
sovereignty  over  a  navigable  river,  an  unequal  rule  of  riglit  amongst 
those  who  have  chosen  to  settle  upon  its  borders,  and  who,  though  from 
necessity  they  must  occupy  different  positions  in  regard  to  its  mouth,  and 
dweil  at  different  distances  from  the  sea,  yet  all  settled  upon  its  borders 
for  the  same  piu-pse  of  using  it,  of  navigating  it,  of  trading  with  remote 
nations,  of  passing  and  repassing  at  v/ill  between  their  homes  and  the 
ocean  ? 

Further,  if  Great  Britain  contends  tor  an  absolute  national  sovereignty 
over  the  mouths  of  navigable  rivers  which  may  be  in  her  possession,  is 
she  prepared  to  submit  to  the  consequences  which  naturally  flow  from  it, 
and  seem  quite  as  reu>oiiable  as  the  doctrine  itself?    The  doctrine,  it  is 


.  v^  •■^  •.-— '■^--— '» •>. 


'....v.. 


1 


12 


Rep.  No.  295. 


true,  does  not  go  quito  so  far  as  to  imply  absolute  property  in  the  contigu- 
ous water,  as  in  land  or  moveable  articles;  for  the  water  by  necessity 
would  cease  to  become  such  when  it  passes  from  one  territorial  dominion 
into  another.  It  is  continuous  in  its  nature;  and  the  same  water  forn)s 
the  narigablc  river  both  above  and  below  the  dividing  boundary  line. 
Yesterday  it  was  in  one  dominion,  to-day  it  is  in  another,  and  "to-mor- 
row will  be  in  that  ocean  to  which  the  presumptuous  sway  of  no  one 
has  as  yet  been  lawfully  extended."  Whilst  the  doctrine  does  not  go  to 
the  length  just  intimated,  it  does,  however,  give  as  absolute  and  sovereign 
control  over  the  sources  of  a  river  to  a  nation  within  whose  territories 
they  are  situate,  as  over  the  month  to  that  nation  which  may  possess  it. 
Such  control  is  as  just  and  consistent  with  the  principles  of  right  in  one 
case  as  in  the  other. 

Apply  '.Ills  consequence  of  the  doctrine  claimed  to  the  case  of  thv3  St. 
Lawrence,  and  what  follows?  Its  chief  sources  are  the  great  lakes,  one 
of  which  lies  entirely  within  American  territory.  It  has  been  believed 
that  the  waters  of  liake  Erie  can  be  made  to  flow  into  the  Ohio.  This 
idea  is  not  altogether  new;  for  such  a  connexion,  in  the  form  of  a 
canal,  was  the  subject  of  correspondence  between  Washington  and 
Jefferson  at  an  early  day  in  the  history  of  the  country.  It  was  then 
supposed  that  it  might  be  the  means  of  bringing  the  trade  of  the  western 
country  to  Virginia.  Whatever  miglit  be  the  effects  of  such  a  measure  at 
the  present  day,  by  way  of  diverting  trade,  if  feasible,  it  might  be  so  exe- 
cuted as  to  create  a  new  and  large  navigable  river  within  our  borders, 
which,  whilst  it  would  form  a  great  highway  for  inland  commerce,  Avould 
at  the  same  time  swell  the  waters  of  the  Ohio  so  as  to  be  navigable  by 
steamboats  at  all  seasons  of  the  year  for  a  much  greater  distance  above 
its  mouth.  But  would  England  acquiesce  in  such  a  measure,  when  she 
should  suddenly  find  the  waters  of  the  St.  Lawrence  partially  dried  up, 
and  its  navigation  from  Lake  Ontario  to  Q,uebec  perhaps  destroyed  by 
shoals,  rocks,  and  rapids') 

Yet  this  case,  extreme  as  it  may  seem,  would  be  the  natural  result  of 
the  doctrine  for  which  England  contends.  It  could  work  but  liule  in- 
jury to  us,  except  so  far  as  the  St.  Lawrence  may  be  contiguous  to  New 
York.  Lake  Ontario  is  of  great  depth,  and,  although  its  outlet  would 
become  greatly  diminished,  yet  its  surface  would  be  but  little  affected, 
and  its  navigation  would  continue  as  before.  The  upper  lakes  would  re- 
main the  same,  as  their  surplus  waters,  would  still  accunuilate  in,  and  be 
discharged  from.  Lake  Erie.  But  this  objection  would  be  without  force, 
since  our  drainage  of  its  surplus  waters  would  not  injure  its  navigation. 

Yif^lding,  however,  to  this  objection,  let  us  pass  upward  for  a  thousand 
miles,  and  we  come  to  the  extremity  of  Lake  Michigan,  which  lies  en- 
tirely within  our  borders.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  United  States 
have  as  sovereign  control  over  the  waters  of  this  lake  as  any  nation  can 
have  over  those  of  a  navigable  river.  But  will  England  admit  such  con- 
trol to  be  absolute  and  unqualified,  and  allow  us  to  drain  its  waters  into 
the  Ohio  or  Mississippi?  In  this  case,  as  in  the  other.,  she  migiit  behold 
her  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  obstructed  by  new  shoals,  rocks,  and 
rapids.  Michigan,  too,  might  be  a  little  interested  in  this  state  of  things; 
and  all  the  States  of  the  Northwest,  whose  commerce  passes  over  the 
lakes,  might  find  th'eir  ancient  right  of  navigation  interrupted  by  impas- 
sable shoals,  if  not  in  the  St.  Clair  and  Detroit  rivers,  certainly  in  Lake 
St.  Clair,  the  depth  of  whose  navigable  channels  is  noj^  barely  sufficient 


in  the  coiitigu- 
r  by  necessity 
torial  dominion 
me  water  forms 
boundary  line, 
and  'Uo-mor- 
way  of  no  one 
does  not  go  to 
e  and  sovereign 
lose  territories 
may  possess  it. 
of  right  in  one 

case  of  the  St. 
roat  lakes,  one 
been  believed 
le  Ohio.     This 
tlie  form  of  a 
ashington  and 
It  was  then 
of  the  western 
h  a  measure  at 
tight  bo  so  exe- 
lin  our  borders, 
mmerce,  would 
)e  navigable  by 
distance  above 
sure,  when  she 
-ially  dried  up, 
«  destroyed  by 

latural  result  of 
rk  but  hnle  in- 
:iguous  to  New 
ts  outlet  would 
t  little  affected, 
akes  would  re- 
late in,  and  be 
without  force, 
its  navigation, 
for  a  thousand 
which  lies  en- 
United  States 
my  nation  can 
Imit  such  con- 
its  waters  into 
might  heboid 
lis,  rocks,  and 
tate  of  thmgsj 
asses  over  the 
)ted  by  impas- 
ajnly  in  Lake 
rely  sufficient 


Rep.  No.  293. 


13 


for  the  passage  of  our  largest  vessels.  Here  is  one  of  the  strongest  cases 
to  be  put  for  asserting  the  doctrine  of  absolute  sovereignty  over  navigable 
waters  connecting  with  the  ocean.  It  is  not  the  case  of  a  river,  but  a 
large  inland  sea,  340  miles  long,  afid  averaging  58  miles  in  width,  and 
lying  entirely  within  our  own  coin)try.  The  United  States  have  not  yet 
claimed  the  right  thus  to  drain  its  waters  and  destroy  or  impair  the  navi- 
gation of  the  St.  Lawrence;  but  it  implies  no  greater  sovereignty  on  our 
part  than  that  which  Great  Britain  claims  over  that  river,  and  one  case 
has  been  su^jposed  to  illustrate  the  other,  and  to  show  that  there  can  be 
no  such  right  as  that  of  absolute  control  over  the  mom.,  of  a  navigable 
river  emptying  into  the  ocean,  as  against  a  nation  occupying  the  same 
river  above. 

Another  argument  may  be  adduced  in  favor  of  the  claim  of  the  United 

States,  based  upon  the  Jaint  acquisition  of  the  St.  Lawrence  by  Gli-eat 

Britain  and  her  American  colonies,  as  the  result  of  the  war  with  France, 

followed  by  the  treaty  of  1763,  which  gave  the  Canadas  to  England.    In 

that  war,  many  of  the  colonies,  now  States  of  this  Union,  "well  bore 

thqir  part,"  and  contributed  not  a  little  in   accomplishing  its  results. 

From  that  time  to  the  Revolution  they  enjoyed  freely  its  navigation,  and 

none  can  question  their  right  during  this  period.     But  they  claimed  it 

I  then  as  tolonies;  and  should  they,  by  revolutionizing  and  erecti-ig  them- 

I  selves  into  independent  States  and  sovereignties,  possess  less  right  of 

'  navigation  than  before?    Would  it  not  be  more  reasonable  to  suppose 

that  their  transition  from  a  state  of  colonial  vassalage  to  one  of  national 

sovereignty  weuld  enlarge,  if  possible,  or  at  least  not  diminish,  and  even 

destroy,  their  former  right? 

I     We  are  now  brought  to  a  consideration  of  the  last,  and  perhaps  the 

I  strongest,  argument  in  favor  of  the  American  claim — that  of  commercial 

J4  necessity.     This  argument  has  its  origin  in  no  temporary  or  artificial 

I  causes,  which  it  is  in  our  power  to  remove,  but  springs  irom  that  difference 

1  of  geographical  position  to  which,  from  the  nature  of  things,  nations 

I  must  forever  be  subject.     "The  unerring  counsels  of  nature"  have  led 

I  our  people  to  the  shores  of  the  great  lakes,  and  pointed  them  out  as 

I  sources  and  parts  of  a  great  navigable  highway  to  the  ocean.     Circum- 

I  stances  connected  with  the  recent  and  wonderful  growth  of  our  country, 

lend  especially  of  that  section  which  borders  upon  this  highway,  now 

I  point  to  its  use,  not  merely  as  a  convenience,  but  necessity.     This 

argument  presents  us  with  a  view  of  the  trade  and  commerce  which  now 

,  seek  access  to  the  markets  of  the  world  through  this  channel,  and  invites 

■  us  to  estimate  them,  if  possible,  for  the  future.     It  pictures  to  us  the  val- 

i  ley  of  the  lakes  as  it  is,  and  is  to  be. 

This  valley  contains  a  lake  coast  of  about  5,000  miles,  of  which  nearly 
three  thousand  belong  to  the  United  States.  Lakes  Ontario,  Eric  Huron, 
Michigan  and  Superior,  not  including  the  straits  and  channels  by  which 
they  ara  connected,  form  a  continuous  body  of  water  1,450  miles  in  length 
and  averaghig  61  miles  in  width.  But  few  countries  can,  none  but  our  own 
doeSf  contain  such  a  field  for  inland  commerce.  Its  commercial  importance 
"is  best  exhibited  by  the  wonderful  development  of  population  and 
wealth  which  have  so  suddenly  accumulated  upon  its  shores.  History 
has  never  before  recorded  a  more  wonderful  story  in  the  settlement  of  the 
world  than  that  which  tells  of  the  birth  and  growth  of  this  Northwestern 
valley.  The  general  settlement  of  our  country  has  surpassed  the  most 
I  sanguine  expectations;  but  that  has  been  the  wojk  of  centuries,  whilst 


\ 


I  ^ 
I, 


N^ 


14 


Rep    No.  993. 


the  settlement  of  this  valley  has  been  the  work  of  a  generation — of  a  day. 
There  are  those  who  saw  the  Northwest  when  it  did  not  contain  5,000  in- 
hahitants,  and  are  now  living  to  see  it  teeming  with  a  population  of  five 
millions,  or  almost  double  our  entire  population  when  we  declared  our 
independence  of  Great  IJritaiii.  Its  commerce  has  been  equally  sudden 
in  growth  and  wonderful  in  extent. 

Who  will  not  be  startled  on  being  told  that  the  commerce  of  Michigan 
has  become  nearly  equal  to  that  of  all  Canada?  Yet,  incredible  as  it  may 
seem,  it  is  true.  But  Michigan  is  the  child  of  one  generation;  and  in 
our  own  day  her  population  has  risen  from  five  to  nearly  five  hundred 
thousand,  whilst  the  population  of  Canada  is  more  than  three  times 
that  of  this  youthful  State,  and,  having  the  experience  of  two  centuries, 
she  even  now  languishes  as  with  pi-ernfiture  decline.  ',h,i,K 

The  following  is  a  comparative  view  of  the  commerce  of  Canada  and 
Michigan,  in  respect  to  certain  leading  exports,  for  the  year  1847: 

Ciinadn  exported.  Mictiiean  exported. 

Flour,  bbls.     >  -  928, (Mil 

Wheat,  bushels  -  925,012 

■       Lumber,  in  feet  -       76,913,735 

/""Shingles  -  ^       14,744,000 

'  *']    Aggregate  exports  for  1847  (unknown) 


i  11/ 


933,179 

601 ,688 

73,842,000 

26,633,000 

$7,119,832 


^.j-' 


Total  for  1846 106;836 


We  have  not  the  means  for  determining,  in  figures,  the  aggregate  exports 
of  Canada  for  the  year  1847,  but,  from  such  information  as  we  have  been 
able  to  obtain,  they  are  believed  to  have  been  much  less  than  those  of  Michi- 
gan; but  the  imports  of  the  former  for  the  same  year  are  known  to  have 
been  greater  than  those  of  the  latter.  Furthermore,  the  trade  of  Canada 
has  been,  ol  late  years,  steadily  declining,  and  has  reached  a  point  of 
great  depression;  whilst  that  of  Michigan,  as  of  all  the  Northwestern  States, 
has  been  steadily  increasing. 

There  are  now  eight  States  immediately  connected  with  the  navigation 
of  the  lakes  whose  commerce,  to  some  extent,  might,  if  permitted,  seek 
an  outlet  to  the  ocean  through  the  St.  Lawrence— Vermont,  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Indiana,  Illinois, and  Wisconsin.  They 
were  estimated  to  contain  in  1846  a  population  of  8,877,456,  or  nearly 
half  thai  of  the  whole  Union,  of  which  2,928,925  depended  upon  the 
lakes  for  reaching  a  market.  Much  information  upon  this  subject  is  con- 
tained in  the  very  valuable  report  to  the  Secretary  of  War  from  the  Topo- 
graphical Bureau  of  December  10,  1847,  which  presents  a  view  of  the  lake 
commerce  up  to  the  year  1846.  We  have  drawn  upon  this  source  for  a 
few  important  statistics,  and  do  not  doubt  that  they  may  be  relied  on  ?'« 
mainly  correct,  since  they  are  based  upon  detailed  reports  from  the  various 
collection  ports  and  districts,  which  exhibit  the  kinds  and  quantities  of 
which  the  commerce  consists.  We  have  been  also  kindly  furnished  by 
Colonel  Abert,  of  the  Topographical  Bureau,  with  some  facts  and  figures 
touching  the  commerce  of  the  lakes  at  a  much  later  period  ;  and,  as  they 
are  believed  not  yet  to  have  been  published,  they  are  presented  below,  in 
a  consolidated  form,  in  connexion  with  those  fo*  a  former  year: 

LaJce  tonnage  for  1846  Avas,  steam ;';'.;..*;"; ."^'.VvU/.Vv     60,825 

Do do do.  ..sailing ........'.'.'.     46,011 


i 


I  1 

i 


h 


Rep.  No  295. 


15 


ion — of  a  day. 
lUiin  5,000  iii- 
ulation  of  five 
declared  our 
(luully  sudden 

e.  of  Michigan 
lible  as  it  rnay 
ration;  and  in 
y  live  hundred 
n  three  tinges 
two  centuries, 

)f  Canada  and 
1847: 

lean  pxoorted. 

933,1 r9 
G()I,G8S       , 
842,000 
0:^3 ,0(M) 
119,832 


■gregate  exports  ;" 
<  we  have  been  '| 
those  of  Michi- 
cnowri  to  have 
rade  of  Canada 
hed  a  point  of 
iwestern  States, 


Tlie  npper  lake  tonnage  for  1849,  with  that  of  Lake  Ontario  for 
1848,  exhibits  a  total  tonnage  of — that  of  Lake  Champlain  not 
included  .*. 1 98,295 

Increase  is  nearly  100  per  cent. ,  being 91 ,459 


Mariners  employed  on  the  lakes  in  1840  were 6,972 

The  following  table  exhibits  the  totnl  exports  and  imports  of  certain 
leading  ports  and  districts: 

Buffalo,  (port.)  1846 i|!48, 98«>,  116 

Cleveland do 12,559,110 

Detroit do 8, 706, 348 

Oswego do 9, 502, 980 

Erie do 6, 373, 246 

Whitehall do „ 6, 327, 489 

Monroe,  (district,)  and  Toledo,  1846 9, 519, 067 

Sandusky,  (district,)  1846 5, 943, 127 

Burlington ,do 3,  777,  726 

Chicago,  (port,)  1848 11, 903, 000 

Milwaukie do 5, 927, 000 


I  the  navigation 
permitted,  seek 
)nt.  New  York, 
icon  sin.  They 
,456,  or  nearly 
ided  upon  the 
I  subject  is  con- 
from  the  Topo- 
V  ie  w  of  the  lake 
lis  source  for  a 
be  relied  on  f"  '^ 
Tom  the  various  l| 
lid  quantities  of  ^j 
ly  fiirnished  by  ^ 
cts  and  figures  ' 
I  ;  and,  as  they  t 
snted  below,  in  ^ 
year:  ^ 

60,825  '4 

46,011  ^ 

"■'■•  ^'m 

\.'i-A   106,836 


The  aggregate  exports  and  imports  of  the  lake  ports  for  1846  were  re- 
ported at  $123,829,821. 

This  sum,  however,  represents  a  duplicate  commerce,  since  the  exports 
of  one  place  are  to  some  extent  the  imports  of  another,  and  tlie  nctt  value 
was  estimated  to  be  one-half,  or  $61,914,910. 

This  view,  for  1846,  falls  much  short  of  the  Avhole  truth,  since  it  is 
known  that  these  estimates  include  nothing  for  the  commerce  of  eighteen 
important  places,  from  Avhich  there  were  no  returns  for  that  year. 

If  we  now  look  at  the  lake  commerce  for  the  year  1848,  we  find  that 
its  increase  is  nearly  commensurate  with  that  of  the  tonnage,  as  above 
stated.  The  aggregate  exports  and  imports  for  that  year  of  the  different 
lakes  were  estimated  as  follows,  in  round  numbers: 

Lake  Michigan,  exports  and  imports,  1848 $24, 320, 000 

Lake  Huron do do do 848,000 

Lake  St.  Clair  ....do ..do.... do 636,000 

Lake  Erie do do do 115, 785, 000 

\ake  Superior do do. .  ..do (unknown.) 

Total  for  1848,  in  round  numbers 141,589,000 

LaKe  Ontario,  for  1848 28, 141, 000 

Lake  Champlain.  .do (unknown.) 

i  an  JO  ^vcMffMi'..  vr,'   .1.  •;■   I  li    •■•■   '.       .        i'    •  .  .  169, 7307000 


Consolidated  returns  in  exact  numbers:    ' 

Ijxkes  above  the  falls $141, 593, 667 

Lake  Ontario 28, 140, 927 

Lake  Champlain,  (1846) 11,266,069 

Lake  Superior (unknown.) 


l!-  U-iJ 


181,000,653 


16 


Rep.  No.  295. 


.fl 


This  ftstimato  gives  tho  sum  of  $1 81  ,O0O,5{)3  as  the  aggregnto  vahie  of 
llic  lake  (exports  and  imports  for  the  year  1H4H,  of  which,  UDoii  the  prin- 
ciple hefoio  nientionod,  one-iiuif  may  he  sot  down  as  tlie  ucit  value  for 
that  year— i?9(),o00,270. 

Such  are  !>omc  fow  of  the  many  farts  from  which  some  estimate  may 
be  formed  of  the  immense  commcice  of  the  lakes.  The  great  increase  of 
the  articles  of  fl(mr  and  wheat,  as  received  for  a  series  of  years  prior  to 
1848,  at  Ihiffalo,  the  |)rincipal  receiving  depot  of  the  lake  commerce,  on 
its  way  to  the  eastern  markets,  furnishes  something  like  an  index  of  its 
general  increase  in  other  productions.  Reduced  to  an  equivalent  in  wheat, 
they  rose  from  2,7SO,0(K)  hushcls  in  1S41  to  l(»,()R8,r>r.4  bushels  in  1817; 
and,  adopting  17  per  cent,  as  an  approved  rate  of  annual  increase  of  the 
aggregate  lake  commerce,  in  ten  years,  or  in  1857,  its  nett  value  will  be 
$170,545,257. 

Tho  abo\'e  facts  and  figures  enable  us  to  form  some  idea  of  the  present 
commercial  condition  of  the  lukc  valley.  But  who  can  measure  its  pros- 
pects in  the  future?  The  experience  of  the  few  past  years  teaches  that 
Us  growth  has  surpassed  all  prior  calculations,  and  past  estimates  have 
seldom  kept  pace  with  existing  realities.  It  has  become  quite  impossible 
to  ])roportion,  in  advance,  the  increase  of  this  region  in  population, 
wealth,  and  commerce,  to  the  increase  of  its  facilities  for  communicating 
with  the  eastern  markets.  The  future  refuses  to  be  governed  by  rules  of 
past  experience.  If  the  commerce  of  this  valley  is  to  increase  from  sixty- 
three  millions  in  1847  to  one  iiundrkd  and  seventy  millions  in  1857,- 
who  will  undertake  to  measure  it  at  the  expiration  of  another  quarter  or 
half  of  a  century?  And  if  it  now  crowds  our  channels  of  communica- 
tion almost  to  stoppage,  and,  consequently,  finds  its  way  disadvanta- 
geously  through  them  to  market,  what  will  be  the  condition  of  things  in 
fifty,  twenty-five,  or  even  te.i  years  hence,  unless  some  portion  of  it  can 
find  its  way  to  the  ocean  through  the  channel  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  which 
nature  has  constructed  for  it  with  so  liberal  a  hand? 

Further,  we  cannot  overlook  the  very  important  fact  that  the  free  navi- 
gation of  the  St.  Lawrence  would,  in  effect,  for  commercial  purposes, 
add  three  thousand  miles  to  our  ocean-coast.  It  would  convert  the  lakes 
into  great  ocean-inlets  or  bays,  and  their  ports  into  ocean -harbors. 
Whitehall,  Burlington,  OsAvego,  Buffalo,  Cleveland,  Detroit,  Mihvaukie, 
Chicago,  and  all  our  lake  towns  and  cities,  would  be  substantially  upon 
the  ocean.  They  could  thus  carry  mi  a  direct  export  and  import  trade 
with  Liverpool,  with  China,  or  any  other  remote  country  of  the  globe 
which  may  be  accessible  from  the  ocean.  It  would  open  their  valuable 
timber  forests,  and  enable  them  to  send  ships,  as  well  as  cargoes,  tor  salq 
to  the  English  marts,  or  those  of  any  other  country  by  whose  navigation 
laws  it  might  be  permitted.  Such  a  change  in  geographical  position 
could  hardly  fail  to  produce  a  great  revolution  in  the  commerce  of  the 
Northwest,  not  by  way  of  diverting  it  seriously  from  its  accustomed  chan- 
nels, but  by  opening  new  fields  of  enterprise,  stnnulating  new  industry, 
and  giving  new  employment  to  labor.  No  appreLonsion  need  be  enter- 
tained that  existing  artificial  channels  would  not  coutLime  to  be  taxed  for 
transpotlatibn,  as  now,  to  th*"  extent  of  their  capacity  for  public  use  and  ad- 
Vantage.  We  have  already  shown  the  probable  future  iucce.aae  of  our  lake, 
commeree;  and  all  apprehension  like  that  suggested  should  be  dispelled, 
when  it  is  also  considered  that  the  population  of  the  Northwest  alone, 


Rep.  No.  295. 


17 


estimating  by  approved  principles  of  increase  as  applicable  to  that  parti- 
cular and  growing  region,  will,  in  the  lapse  of  half  a  century,  be  not  far 
fr©ni  thirty  millions,  or  several  millions  greater  than  the  present  [wpula- 
tion  of  the  entire  Union. 

There  are  also  some  other  facts  which  must  be  noticed  flir  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  would  be  revolu- 
tionary in  some  of  its  results,  not  by  interfering  with  present  ronunercial 
interests,  but  i»y  stitnulating  new  industry  and  calling  for  ul-w  labor.  We 
had  in  1847,  as  before  seen,  a  lake  tonnage  of  nearly  2U0.00()  tons;  and  ,  ' 
this,  with  its  subsequent  increase,  is  employed  in  short  voyages,  varying 
in  time  from  one  to  a  few  days.  But  open  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  tlieso 
voyages  may,  instead  of  days  or  weeks,  reciuire  months  and  even  years 
One  single  ocean  voyage  may  become  equal  to  all  the  voyages  of  a  vessel 
which  plies  during  every  week  of  the  navigable  season  between  Buffalft. 
'  ,and  Chicago.  For  every  vessel  engaged  in  present  commerce  that  passes 
out  upon  the  ocean,  another  nmst  sooner  or  later  take  its  place. 
,  All  this  would  re([uire  more  tonnage  and  more  hands.  Can  it  be 
|i|oubted  that,  under  the  stimulus  of  this  measure,  our  lake  tonnage  would 
m  suddenly  and  vastly  increased, and  even  quadrupled,  at  an  early  day? 
In  this  estimate  we  do  not  include  the  vessels  which  would  be  constructed 
ifilr  sale  in  a  foreign  market.  Such  an  increase  of  tonnage  would  bring 
■Vk[ith  it  an  increase  of  hands,  and  raise  the  amount  of  the  latter  from 
peven  to  twenty-eight  thousand.  These  results  would  tend  to  produce 
(Competition,  whilst  competition  would  tend  to  cheapen  the  transportation 
of  our  commerce.  To  this  must  be  added  the  advantages  of  a  continuous 
•yoyage— one  which  would  be  subject  to  little  or  no  delays  at  intermediate 
i)orts,  and  to  no  expenses  for  transhipment.  A  large  portion  of  the 
^pxpense  of  transportation  is  incurred  at  the  places  of  shipment  and  dis- 
«fharge,  and  hence  the  cost  of  the  voyage  is  not  determined  by  its  length. 
All  the  ports  upon  the  lakes  below  Lake  Superior  are  said  to  be  nearer 
Liverfwol  than  Odessa,  the  principal  wheat  mart  on  the  Black  sea. 
Cleveland  is  said  to  be  more  than  a  thousand  miles  nearer;  so  that  there  is 
lii^le  room  for  doubt  that  the  lake  valley,  having  the  advantages  of  a  con- 
tifluous  voyage  via  the  St.  Lawrence,  can  send  its  wheat  as  cheaply  to  \ 
th?  English  markets  as  the  country  of  the  Black  sea,  and  thus  maintain  ^ 
a^successful  competition. 

■ii  We  should  fail  to  do  justice  to  the  subject  if  we  omitted  to  notice  an- 
other feature  in  the  commercial  condition  of  the  lake  valley:  that  for  at 
ipast  five  months  in  every  year  its  navigable  waters  are  bound  up  witVi 
irosts  and  snows  of  a  northern  winter.  In  1846,  the  capital  invested  in 
the  lake  tonnage  was  estimated  at  six,  and  now  cannot  be  far  from  ten 
Spillions;  but  during  the  long  period  of  winter  this  vast  capital  is  idle, 
yhilst  the  ships  are  decaying  at  their  moorings,  amidst  snow  and  ice. 
^or  this  loss,  it  is  well  known,  the  public  is  obliged  to  pay,  by  a 
(necessary  and  consequent  increase  of  prices  charged  for  the  transportation 
|of  persons  and  property.  From  this  cause  aJone  are  the  people  of  the  lake 
^valley  every  yea;-  taxed  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars;  but  it  is  a  tay 
tivhich,  to  sonie  extent  at  least,  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
Ifrould  remove.  Winter  upon  the  lakes  now  suddenly  turns  thousands 
ttut  pf  employ  for  nearly  half  a  year;  and,, being  generally  unfitted,  by  tl  ^ 
habits  of  a  seafering  life,  to  engage  in  ordiaary  occupations  ujjou  land,  to  i 
iwosr  «i  tb^m  >H$  Jxtie,  is  I^t  save  to  congregate  iu  the  cities,  aud  _thei^ 
2  '    '  ' -  '     ■ 


U 


18 


Rep.  No.  296. 


'«<' 


viciously  fsquander  their  earnings  of  the  summer.  Make  free  the  St.  Law- 
rence, and  many  of  our  ships,  with  their  crews,  engaged  during  the  sum- 
mer in  inland  commerce,  at  least  such  as  are  fitted  for  ocean  navigation, 
would  flee  from  the  icy  lakes  during  winter,  and  seek  other  and  more  go- 
nial fields  of  commercial  enterprise. 

We  have  now  presented  a  brief  sketch  of  the  principal  arguments  upon 
which  our  claim  to  a  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  is  based.-  It 
must,  however,  be  remembered,  that  this  exhibition  of  the  commerce  of 
the  lakes  has  been  confined  entirely  to  that  which  is  American  in  its  char- 
acter. There  is  also  upon  the  lakes  a  large  British  conimerce,  which 
would  be  greatly  increased  by  that  reciprocal  stimuhis  of  trade  which  would 
spring  from  a  joint  and  equal  navigation  of  the  river  by  the  people  of  both 
\   countries. 

^^^  But  little,  therefore,  now  remains,  save  to  inquire  what  objections,  if 
any,  can  be  urged  against  the  justice  of  the  American  claim?  That  it 
would  benefit  us,  there  is  no  doubt;  and  that  it  would  work  no  injury  to 
British  commercial  interests,  seems  equally  clear.  Si  far  from  that  is  the 
truth,  that  it  would  operate  as  a  fresh  stimulus  of  British  enterprise  lA 
Canada.  By  what  principle,  then,  of  natural  right  and  justice,  or  of  in- 
ternational law,  can  England  withhold  from  us  a  right  of  so  much  na- 
tional importance,  and  one  the  concession  of  which  could  work  no  injury 
to  her  own  right  of  navigation,  or  involve  any  sacrifice  of  her  honor? 
Where  a  right  claimed  by  one  nation  against  another  is  an  innocent  right, 
and  its  enjoyment  is  essential  for  the  public  interests  of  the  nation  claim- 
ing, it  is  believed  that  the  law  of  nations  has  amply  provided  for  its  recog- 
nition. "  Property  cannot  deprive  nations  of  the  general  right  of  travelling 
over  the  earth,  in  order  to  have  a  communication  with  each  other,/or  cat\ 
Tying  on  trade,  and  other  just  reasons.  The  master  of  a  country  may  only 
refuse  the  passage  on  particular  occasions,  where  he  finds  it  is  prejudicial 
or  dangerous."  (Vattel,book2,ch.  10,  sec.  132.)  The  same  author  (in  ch. 
10  of  same  book,  sec.  134)  says:  "  A  passage  ought  also  to  be  granted  for 
merchandise;  and  as  th"3  may  in  common  be  done  without  inconvenience, 

J  to  refuse  it  without  just  reason  is  injuring  a  nation,  and  endeavoring  to 
deprive  it  of  the  toeans  of  carrying  on  a  trade  with  other  states;  if  the 
passage  occasion  any  inconvenience,  any  expense  for  the  preservation  of 
canals  and  highways,  it  may  be  recompensed  by  the  rights  of  toll."  The 
navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  can  be  connected  with  that  of  the  upper 
lakes  only  by  a  canal.  None  exists  at  present  for  that  purpose  within  oilr 
own  country;  and,  having  no  right,  we  of  course  cannot  ask  the  privilege 
of  transporting  our  commerce  through  the  canals  of  Canada  without  ren- 
dering a  just  compensation. 

The  right  of  passage,  where  it  may  be  innocently  exercised,  may  be 
"well  illustrated  by  the  case  of  navigable  straits  connecting  seas,  the  navi- 
gation of  which  is  common  to  several  nations.  As  the  rivers  St.  Mary, 
St.  Clan*,  and  Detroit  have  often  been  called  straits,  forming  a  continuous 
communication  between  some  of  the  great  lakes,  so  the  St.  Lawrence^ 
which  is  but  another  though  longer  link  in  the  chain,  may  be  likened  unto  a 
strait.  It  connects  the  ocean,  which  is  free  to  all  nations,  with  an  inland 
sea,  whose  navigation  is  common  to  the  two  nations  which  occupy  itis 
shores.  And  of  such  a  case  the  same  writer  upon  international  law  sayq: 
(  "  He  who  possesses  the  strait  cannot  refuse  others  a  passage  through  it, 
J      provided  that  passage  be  innocent  and  attended  with  liO  danger  to  the 


1 


I 


Rep.  No.  296. 


19 


the  St.  Law- 
irig  the  sum- 
navigation, 
and  more  go- 

uments  upon 
s  based;  It 
commerce  of 
11  in  its  char- 
Herce,  which 
whicli  would 
jeople  of  both 

objections,  if 

rim  ?   That  it 

no  injury  to 

jui  that  is  the 

1  enterprise  iA 

tice,  or  of  in* 

so  much  na- 

ork  no  injury 

)f  her  honor? 

nnocent  right> 

nation  claim- 

1  for  its  recog- 

it  of  travelling 

other, /or  caty 

ntry  may  only 

is  prejudicial 

'.  author  (in  ch. 

be  granted  for 

nconvenience, 

sndeavoring  to 

states;  if  the 

i)reservation  of 

)ftoll."    The 

it  of  the  upper 

ose  within  oiir 

k  the  privilege 

1  without  ren- 

cised,  may  be 
ieas,  the  navi- 
ers  St.  Mary, 
I  a  continuous 
St.  Lawrence^ 
likened  uuto  a 
nth  an  inland 
ch  occupy  its 
}nal  law  say^l 
ge  through  it, 
danger  tp  thev 


State."  This  right  of  passage  has  been  well  called  by  Qrotius,  "  a  right 
interwoven  with  tha  very  frame  of  human  society;"  and,  if  more  need  be 
added  to  confirm  the  argument,  let  his  declaration  be  cited,  that  *<  a  free 

{)assage  ihrnugli  countries,  rivers,  or  over  any  part  of  the  soa,  which  be- 
ong  to  some  particular  people,  ought  to  be  allowed  to  tliose  who  require 
it  for  the  necessary  occasions  of  life,  whether  those  occasions  be  in  quest 
of  settlements,  after  being  driven  from  their  own  country,  or  to  trade  with 
a  remote  vation.^* — Book  2,  ch.  2,  sec.  13. 

Further,  can  any  objection  be  drawn  from  the  practice  and  opinions  of 
the  world,  as  exhibited  in  its  international  tr(!aties  ?  Here  it  is  to  be  re- 
marked, that  the  concession  of  7ipw  rights  must  not  be  confounded  with 
the  recognition  of  old  ones.  Treaties  sometimes  create  rights,  and  some- 
times merely  acknowledge  those  already  existing,  which,  though  ques- 
tioned to  some  extent,  are,  upon  examination,  found  to  have  a  just  exist- 
ence in  nature,  and  independently  of  treaties.  They  arc,  therefore,  for- 
mally asserted  by  one  party,  and  acknowledged  by  the  other,  so  as 
ell'ectually  to  remove  all  grounds  for  future  question  or  difterence.  Thus 
the  thirteenth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  (1713,)  by  \.  hich  France 
ceded  to  England  Newfoundland,  continued  to  the  subjects  of  France  the 
use  of  certain  fisheries  upon  the  coasts  of  that  island.  This  same  right  to 
the  fisheries  was  recognised  as  belonging  to  France  by  the  fifth  article  of  the 
treaty  of  Paris,  (1763,)  which  renewed  and  confirmed  so  much  of  the  13th 
article  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  as  relates  to  this  subject.  At  the  treaty  of  Ver 
failles  (1783)  these  fisheries  were  again  the  subject  of  negotiation,  and  Great 
Britain  and  France  readjusted  the  terms  upon  which  they  should  be  enjoy- 
ed by  the  respective  parties.  The  French  right  of  fislioiy  was  again  the 
subject  of  adjustment  between  tho  parties  at  the  treaty  of  Paris>,in  1814. 
'From  this  series  of  negotiations  it  may  well  be  arguecl,  that  the  treaty  of 
Ulrecht  did  not  create  the  right  of  fishery  for  France,  but  recognised  it  as 
one  already  existing,  and  the  subsequent  treaty  stipulations  upon  the  sub- 
ject concerned  chiefly  the  principles  and  limitations  by  which  it  should  be 
exercised. 

The  third  article  of  our  treaty  of  1783  with  England  may  also  be  cited  as 
in  point,  as  it  stipulated  for  the  contintied  right  on  our  part  to  enjoy  the 
fisheries  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  and  on  the  coast  and  banks  of  New- 
foundland, '<  and  at  all  other  places  in  the  sea,  where  the  inhabitants  of 
both  countries  used  at  any  time  heretofore  to  fish."  Was  it  not  obvious- 
ly the  intention  of  the  parties  to  this  stipulation  not  to  create,hn\.  to  ac- 
kimnlcdge,  for  and  as  against  each  other,  rights  already  existing,  and 
which  had  existed  and  been  enjoyed  in  common  at  least  since  the  acqui- 
sition of  Canada?  These  rights  to  the  fisheries  were  thus  admitted  to 
belong  to  the  United  States,  notwithstanding  their  separation  from  the 
mother  country.  The  language  of  the  article  is,  "that  the  people  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  shall  continue  to  enjoy"  the  fisheries,  and  thus  continues  without 
creating B.  right.  This  continuance  was  evideyitly  based  not  upon  an  idea 
of  concession  on  the  part  of  England,  but  upon  principles  of  natural  jus- 
..tice  and  right,  having  their  origin  in  the  fact,  that  it  was  partly  American 
venterprise  that  had  discovered,  explored,  and  occupied  these  fisheries. 
'  The  United  States  contended  for  such  principles  as  these  in  settling  the 
jterms  of  the  convention  of  1818.  England  sought  to  maintain  that  the 
war  of  1812  had  abrogated  the  American  right  to  the  fisheries,  whilst  Mr. 
'  Rush,  who  conducted  the  negotiations  on  our  part,  insisted  upon  that 


y 


t 

I 


A 


do 


Uep.  No.  295. 


f 


\ 


'if 


tight  ns  being  p^j'mnnrnt  or  perpetual  in  its  nnture,  ns  old  nl  lensl  ns  the 
treaty  of  ITbj;  and  he  shaped  the  terms  of  the  convention  nf)on  this  nnb- 
jert,  with  an  pxprcss  desicjn  on  ids  part  of  rx  iiidiiii^  "  tlie  imitlicatioii  of 
the  li!>h('iies  s(!fur<'d  lo  ns  Ix'inij  a  new  c;iiint." 

Tho  case  is  coiifoived  to  l)t'  aiialoL'tuis,  mid  it  voidd  bcMliUjcidt  to  show, 
that  ihe  natural  right  of  the   Urdted  States  to  transport  their  coniuieico 
tijion  the  iSt.  1  ,a\vretu;e  to  and  (Voni  tlie  ocean  is  nnich  less  than  that,  which 
they  onj«)y  to  the  northeastern  fishori(vs. 
/      The  (|Uostion  of  tlie  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  also  well  illus- 
trates  the  view  now   suhndtted.     At    the   treaty  of    l7Ki  with   (Jreat 
Britain,  its  month  was  held  by  Spain.     It  torined  our  western  boundary, 
and  its  sources  were  su])posed  to  lie  within  British  territory.     Kach  ])arty 
Ptipidaled  in  this  trciity  lor  the  fn>o  and  joint   navigation   of  the  river, 
liut  did  eitlicr  party  co;/c<?^/^  to  or  ercntc  in  tlie  other  any   supposed  new 
right?     Did  this  stipulation  amount  to  anything  more  than  a  recognition 
or  declaration  of  right  as  against  each  other,  and  a  claim  or  assuinptioti 
of  it  as  against  Spain?     It  was  in  tact  an   acknowhidgment  of  supposed 
pre  existing  right — a  right  freely  to  use  and  navigate  the  river,  as  a  greitt 
highway  to  tlie  ocean,  which  nature  hud  created  for  the  accoimnodationOf 
the  nations  who  might  dwell  upon  its  banks.     The  sources  of  the  river 
were,   however,    subsequently    ascertained    to    be   entirely  within   otir 
own  boundaries,  and  we' were  left  alone  to  assert  our  right  against  Spain. 
Our  representatives  at  Madrid  were  instructed  to  press  upon  her  attention 
not  the  privilege  merely,  but  the  right  of  freely  navigating  the   Missii- 
sippi  to  its  mouth;  and  so  anxious  were  the  American  people   upon  this 
subject,  and  so  well  satisfied  of  the  right,  that  the  question  threatened  at 
some  future  time  to  involve  us  in  a  war  with  that  coiuitry;  but  the   far- 
seeing  policy  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  which  looked  to  the  acquisition  of  Loui- 
siana, settled  it  by  the  treaty  of  cession  in  1803.     It  may,  then,  well  be 
asked,  can  Engfand  now  justly  deny  to  us  a  principle,  in  relerence  to  the 
mouth  of  the  St.  liawrence,  which   she  has   already   asserted,  against 
Spain,  in  reference  to  that  of  the  Mississippi? 

Nor,  it  is  believed,  can  any  objection  to  the  American  claim,  as  being 
against  the  practice  or  law  of  nations,  be  derived  from  treaties  amongst 
the  nations  of  Europe,  which  relate  to  the  use  of  navigable  rivers.  They 
are  believed  to  have  proceeded  in  \^v^n  upon  the  idea  not  of  creating,  but 
of  affirming  rights;  not  of  conceding  privileges,  but  of  recognisitjg 
rights  which  had  a  prior  existence  under  the  natural  law.  There  aire 
in  Europe  many  rivers  which  are  not  by  nature  navigable,  but  are  made 
so  by  clearing  out  their  channels  and  by  other  artificial  means,  such  as 
the  Elbe,  Maese,  Weser,  and  Oder.  In  sucb  cases,  both  reason  and  in- 
ternational law  justify  the  exaction  of  tolls,  to  meet  the  expense  of  ptit- 
ting  and  keeping  them  in  navigable  condition;  but  this  exaction  should 


t 


'^ 


tta 


■->  .  ( 


be  limited  to  such  special  and  necessary  purposes. 

By  the  treaty  of  Paris  (^814)  between  England  and  France,  the  navi- 
gation of  the  Rhine,  from  the  point  where  it  becomes  navigable  unto  the 
sea,  was  declared  to  be  free.  At  this  time  a  congress  of  European  nations 
had  already  been  proposed,  and,  in  anticipation  of  its  sitting,  this  same 
treaty  provided,  that  such  congress  should  ''  examine  and  determine  in 
what  manner  the  above  provisions  can  be  extended  to  other  rivers  which, 
in  their  navigable  course,  separate  or  traverse  different  States." 

The  congress  of  Vienna  seems  manifestly  to  have  proceeded  upon  the 


I 


xaction  shoidd 


Rep.  No.  295. 


21 


principle  of  rocoffnisin^  tlui  ri^lit  of  nations  freely  to  navigate  to  its 
nioiitli  the  same  iiv(ir,  which  st«parntes  or  crosses  their  territories  as  a  pre- 
existlMif  ritfht,  foundcil  in  naiiirc  and  confirmed  in  national  convcniMico 
and  necessity,  liy  th«!  a:«Mieral  treaty,  (Jnnc  9,  IH15,)  all  tlios')  '*  povors, 
whose  8tat<J8  are  sc'parated  or  cntssod  by  the  same  navigable  river,  stipu 
lilted  that  their  navi^aliun,  <•  aloiii;  their  whol<!  ccMirse,  iVoni  the  point 
where  each  of  them  becoiiies  navigable  to  its  mouth,  shall  Ix;  entirely 
free,  and  shall  not,  m  rrsprct  tn  cmnnurce,  be  prohibited  to  anyone." 
(See  arts.  108  and  |(h>,  Herzlet's  ("ommcrcial  'IVeaties,  vol.  1.)  Article 
9()  of  the  same  tnuity  provided  specially  that  its  principles  concerning  the 
navisration  of  rivers  should  be  applicable  to  the  Po.  Uo  this  treaty  were 
•appended  cortain  articles  intended  to  operate  as  a  uniform  system  of  po- 
lice for  reiru^;/i«^  their  navigation;  also,  a  set  of  articles  providinj?  spe- 
cially for  the  free  navigation  of  the  Rhine,  and  another  set  providing  for 
ithat  of  the  Neckar,  Mayne,  Moselle,  Meuse,  and  Scheldt,  from  the  point 
where  e>ach  of  them  becomes  navigable  to  their  mouths." 

We  have  thu.s  the  voice  of  nearly  all  I'iUrope  sanctioning  the  ])rincipIo 
contended  fi^r;  for  nearly  all  Murope  was  ]»arty  to  this  treaty.     In  respect 

io  the  navigation  of  rivers,  the  treaty  acts  in  part  upon  rights  already 
Ujjposed  to  exist.  It  asserts  and  regulates,  without  creatitifr  them.  As 
the  statute  often  merely  Idlirms  the  common  law,  so  this  treaty  affirms 
tjie  international  and  natural  law;  and  the  action  of  the  Vienna  congress 
tipon  this  subject  had  its  origin  not  so  much  in  a  denial  of  the  rigiit  of 
nations  to  freely  navigate  rivers  which  separate  or  cross  their  t(!rritorie.s,  as 
in  the  necessity  of  agreeing  upon  some  uniform  regulations  f()r  using  it,  and 
/reemg  it  trom  tiiose  embarrassments  which  might  otherwise  flow  from  the 
fvaxious  and  conflicting  regulations  of  different  States.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  ancient  doctrine  respecting  national  sovereignty  over  the 
Onouths  of  navigable  rivers  emptying  into  the  ocean,  the  British  claim  to 
an  absolute  control  over  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Lawrence  should  now  be 
considered  as  inconsistent  with  a  liberal  and  enUghtened  applicadon 
of  the  natural  law,  and  with  the  principles  recognised  by  the  general 
treaty  of  Vienna,  to  which  England  was  a  prominent  party. 

^f  the  American  Union  had  never  been  fiirmed,  or  if  each  of  its  States 
were  now  to  become  suddenly  invested  with  full  national  sovereignty,  a 
case  would  exist  very  analogous  to  that,  which  made  the  navigable  rivers 
of  Europe  an  important  and  even  necessary  subject  for  adjustment  by  the 
icongress  of  Vienna-     In  either  of  such  events,  wJiat  State  would  pre- 
iSume  to  assert  against  another  absolute  control  over  the  waters  of  a  navi- 
gable river,  which  should  separate  or  traverse  the  territories  of  both?  Who 
shall  close  the  mouth  of  the  Connecticut?     Who  shut  uji  the  Delaware, 
and  drive  the  ships  of  Philadelphia  from  its  waters?     What  single  State 
.  i^hsll  barricade  the  Mississippi  against  the  conmierce  of  St.  Louis,  (Jin- 
jcinnati,  and  all  the  great  States  and  Territories  situate  upon  its  banko,  or 
i  those  of  its  vast  tributaries,  which  stretch  from  the  Aileghanies  to  the 
j  Rocky  mountains  ? 

%       To  these  questions  there  can  be  but  one  answer — "  None."    The  eter- 

i  nal  principles  of  justice — the  laws  of  nature— answer,  "  None."     But,  in 

^either  of  the  supposed  cases,  our  navigable  rivers  would  become  the  thea- 

(tres  of  various  contending  interests,  and  necessarily  subject  to  a  vaiiety 

of  local  jurisdictions.     To  avoid  all  differences  and  conflicts  which  might 

naturally  flow  from  such  variety  of  interest  and  jurisdiction;  a  congress  of 


I: 


22 


Rep.  No.  225. 


H>: 


si 


States,  like  that  of  Vienna,  miglit  well  axuornblc  for  the  purpose  of  afTirm- 
ing,  by  trnnly,  for  and  against  each  other,  thn  right  of  freely  navigating 
Ihoso  riviTs  hy  which  tliey  nnglit  he  sepnratfd  or  crossed,  and  of  regu- 
lating its  «!Xer(Ms()  hy  |)rinf.iples  of  fairnuss  ami  imKorrnity.  The  case  luis 
been  supposed  for  ilhistralion  ;  and  is  it  not  evident,  that  such  a  treaty 
"would  not  crcntv.  the  right  of  navigation,  hut  simply  a()irm  and  rocnsrnisc 
it  as  one  prii-existing?  fSuch  a  treaty  would  doclartj  an  existing  right,  and 
provide  for  its  equal  and  ijencefid  enjoyment. 

We  have  thus  far  considered  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  as 
tlic  subject  of  a  claim  on  the  part  of  our  government  under  the  law  of 
nature  and  of  nations.  Wo  have  done  this,  that  tlio  question  may  bo 
Viewed  in  its  whole  extent,  and  that,  should  the  views  and  arguments  sub- 
mitted in  favor  of  the  American  claim  as  one  of  right  not  be  regarded  as 
condunivp,  iliey  may  at  least  appear  as  reasons,  why  the  British  govern- 
ment Hhoidd  now  generously  concede  to  us  a  privilege,  in  support  ot  whicl) 
so  nnich  can  be  urged,  and  to  which  time  has  added  value  and  imi>ort- 
ance.  If  it  cannot  he  .secured  as  a  riglit,  then  it  is  to  be  considered  as  a 
privilege,  to  be  acquired  either  by  treaty  or  by  some  reciprocal  legislation, 
based  upon  the  idea  of  rendering  a  just  equivalent. 

If  Kngland  will  not  acknowledge  the  right,  as  conferred  upon  us  by  th* 
hand  of  nature,  she  should  acknowledge  it  by  treaty.  She  should,  accord- 
in  to  her  view,  create  it,  and  confer  it  ujjon  us  with  her  own  hand.  Sho 
should  do  it,  loo,  with  the  generosity  of  nature,  without  money  and  with- 
out price.  Siio  should  do  it  with  a  magnanimity  which  so  well  becomes 
her  position,  'I'o  her  it  can  work  no  injury,  whilst  to  us  it  is  a  measure  of 
great  advantage.  Why  should  she  not  grant  to  us,  in  respect  to  the  mouth 
of  the  St,  Lawrence,  what  she  asserted  against  Spain  in  llS'i,  in  respect 
to  that  of  the  Mississippi.'  Why  not  yield  to  us  what,  in  1814,  she  demandeii 
from  b'rancc  in  relation  to  the  Rhine?  Why  not  follow  now  her  own  en- 
lightened example  at  Vienna,  when  sho  demanded  of  Europe  the  free  navi- 
gation of  the  Po,  the  Scheldt,  and  other  rivers,  which  did  not  wash  a  foot 
of  IJritish  soil? 

But,  if  b^ngland  will  neither  acknowledge  the  right  as  already  existing, 
nor  confer  it  upon  us  as  a  gratuity,  then  it  can  only  be  acquired  by  pur- 
chase, on  the  rendition  of  some  just  equivalent.     We  have  already,  under 
anodier  view  of  the  subject,  presented   those  considerations  which  now 
conspire  to  render  the  free  nav.gation  of  the  St.  Lawrence  a  question  pf 
present  and  practical  importanco.     If  the  j-iffht  be  denied,  they  yet  weigh 
in  favor  of  acquiring  the  privUen[e,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  rejioat  thoia. 
If  it  is  to  be  purchased  by  treaty,  then  it  presses  itself  upon  the  attention 
of  the  treaty  making  power,  as  a  question  which,  if  not  soon  settled  by 
negotiation,  must  ere  long  be  settled  by  the  irresistible  course  of  human 
events.     But  if  it  is  to  be  purchased  by  means  of  reciprocal  legislation, 
then  it  urges  itself  upon  the  attention  of  Congress,  and  calls  for  the  adop- 
•  lion  of  legislative  meacures  with  a  view  to  its  acquisition.     Whatever 
difference  of  opinion  may  exist  as  to  the  mode  by  which  it  should  be  ac- 
quired, it  seems  very  certain,  that  the  question  in  regard  to  the  St.  Law- 
i  rence,  which  5o  earnestly  engaged  the  attention  of  the  administrations  of 
-  Monroe  and  the  younger  Adams,  and  which  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Clay,  as 
they  successively  stood  at  the  head  of  the  State  Department,  pressed  Uf)on 
.'  the  attention  of  the  British  government  with  so  much  ability  and  patriot- 
i  ism,  is  now  revived  witli  increased  magnitude.    iNor  is  the  fact  to  be  dis- 


/ 


^^mmmmmmh'ttimf 


imif»m.  Ill     ,:a. 


Rep.  No.  205. 


23 


pnso  of  nffirtn- 
•\y  titivignting 
nrid  of  repii- 
'I'lie  rn.s»!  lias 
siKiK  a  treaty 
iiiid  rocntriiific 
iiig  riglit,  and 

.  I  in,\vronco  as 
t;r  tlio  law  of 
stiori  may  be 
n,'uinontH  Hub- 
b«!  rotfard(;d  as 
ritiBh  fjovorn- 
t|)(>rt  of  whiclj 
e  and  im(>ort- 
otisidered  as  a 
cal  legislatioQ, 

ipon  us  by  the 
ilu)uld,  accord- 
-^11  hand.  Sho 
)noy  and  with- 
)  well  becomes 
is  a  measure  of 
*-t  to  the  mouth 
rcSli,  ill  respect 
,  she  demanded 
w  her  own  ou* 
)e  the  free  navi- 
lot  wash  a  foot 

I  ready  existing, 
quired  by  pur- 
already,  ut^der 
ns  which  now 
e  a  question  pf 
they  yet  weigh 
to  rcjwat  them, 
n  the  attention 
soon  settled  by 
urse  of  human 
3al  legislation, 
Is  for  the  adop- 
ni.  Whatever 
t  should  be  ac- 
0  the  St.  Law- 
ninistrations  of 
d  Mr.  Clay,  as 
,  pressed  upon 
ty  and  patriot- 
fact  to  be  dis- 


guised, that  the  sudd(Mi  growth  of  the  lake  valley,  its  iucreoHed  and  in- 
croasiiig  couimerri!,  its  conviMiituico,  its  wants,  iis dourest  iiitorosls,  tliM  ^oti- 
tioiKs  of  its  pcdplo,  and  circumstancev,  connected  with  the  geo^raphicul 
relations  of  ihu  two  countries,  and  their  future  peace  and  harmony,  are 
all  conspiring  to  present  the  (H'lcstion  as  one,  whoso  early  s«!ttlement  in 
suggested  by  the  soundest  dictutet*  of  justice,  prudence,  and  wisdom. 

Ai-i:\.  vv.  itiii;i<. 
JOHN  k.  M(:(;i,i:rnand.« 

E.  G    SPAUL.DLNCJ. 

[•  Mr.  McCleriiand  signs  the  foregoing  reprt,  meaning  thcr<;l»y  to  afliriu 
the  following  principles,  which  are  understood  by  him  to  bo  substantially 
Blliriiied  by  the  re|)orl,  viz  : 

)  1st.  That  by  natural  law,  the  right  of  navigating  a  stream  or  river  is 
♦he  e(iual  and  Mimmoii  right  of  all  the  inhabitants  npoii  its  bordijrs.  tid. 
That  by  the  law  of  society,  ujkiii  the  establishment  of  a  local  jurisdiction 
ever  a  part  o(  the  river,  the  preexisting  natural  right  of  navigating  that 
ptirt  becomes  subject  to  niodihcaiion  by  the  local  sovereign.  'M\.  That 
the  right  thus  remuining  still  holds  good  for  the  purpose  of  innocent  exer- 
cise or  use,  and  is  denominated  an  imperfect  right;  but  is,  ncvertluiless, 
an  essential  and  real  right.  '1th.  That  .the  obstruction  or  rehisal  of  this 
rijht,  when  not  called  for  by  the  p<!ace  or  safety  of  the  local  sovereign, 
arid  to  the  injury  of  the  inhabitants  above,  is  u  wrong,  which  may  authorize 
4cmand  fur  redress  .]  , 


/ 


